Senate’s NASA budget bill may hamper commercial spacecraft makers

SpaceX, Sierra Nevada could face an accounting nightmare.

Back when it was still flying its own vehicles, NASA primarily relied on contractors to maintain and operate them. The agency's current plan takes this approach a bit further, paying private companies a fee for service to take materials and, eventually, people into low-Earth orbit. SpaceX and Orbital Science are already taking cargo to the International Space Station, and three companies—Boeing, SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada—are currently receiving money to develop crewed vehicles.

But this plan doesn't have uniform support from Congress, and the Houston Chronicle's Eric Burger has found that one of the Congressional detractors has slipped wording into a NASA funding bill that could potentially derail the whole process. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has added a small clause that would require all the competing companies to engage in a specific form of cost tracking. Doing so is far more easily dictated than done, based on this description of the accounting methods.

Boeing, as a regular government contractor, already has a system in place for tracking costs in a compatible manner. The other two companies, however, do not and would have to face the costs of adding it. Berger also suggests that the new requirement might force the entire contracting process to be repeated.

When asked about the requirement, Shelby argued that it was necessary for transparency. But the whole idea behind adopting a fee-for-service approach to orbit is that it doesn't matter so much what the contractors are paying for their parts—if they offer the cheapest safe ride to orbit, that should be all that matters. Requiring contract pricing-type accounting, as proposed here, could be viewed as an action that unfairly grants advantage to Boeing.

I almost want NASA to be closed, just so I can stop being appalled & disappointed at how our legislature deals with their budget and goal setting.

Maybe having NASA closed or at least unable to operate in any significant capacity will finally catch the masses' attention once they find out that other countries are doing more and more each day in their space programs.

The commercial program only has one customer, the US government, and the people who pay the government taxes have a right to know how their money is being spent. I see no problem with this amendment. We must be vigilant against the US Space Industrial Complex.

How it’s being spent is immaterial. How much is spent for what result is what’s important.

It may not be legal for the commercial crew providers to comply with this regulation. Private contracts with suppliers are often confidential, and revealing the terms of their contracts can put them at a competitive disadvantage when bidding on other contracts. The suppliers may sue for breach of contract, so SpaceX and SNC may have no choice but to pull out of the commercial crew program.

The commercial program only has one customer, the US government, and the people who pay the government taxes have a right to know how their money is being spent. I see no problem with this amendment. We must be vigilant against the US Space Industrial Complex.

Except for the part where this subtle addition puts two of Boeing's competitors at a great disadvantage, and the congresscritter that put the pork in there has an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to Boeing.

This is only for the commercial crew vehicle. SpaceX's other business is not relevant. I think it is a valid concern that there will not be enough launches to keep multiple commercial vehicles viable and this will devolve into a captive customer engagement.

SpaceX and Boeing will have other customers. Bigelow Aerospace is confirmed to be one of them. They've been waiting patiently for these vehicles to be ready so they can finally launch their commercial space stations based on their inflatable BA-330 modules.

The commercial program only has one customer, the US government, and the people who pay the government taxes have a right to know how their money is being spent. I see no problem with this amendment. We must be vigilant against the US Space Industrial Complex.

Except for the part where this subtle addition puts two of Boeing's competitors at a great disadvantage, and the congresscritter that put the pork in there has an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to Boeing.

It's not clear that Sen. Shelby supports Boeing's entry in the commercial crew program. He may be more concerned that commercial crew is diverting (a relatively small amount of) money from SLS. Who is the highest-billing contractor on SLS? Boeing.

When it comes to commercial crew, Boeing can take it or leave it. The real money is in SLS.

It may not be legal for the commercial crew providers to comply with this regulation. Private contracts with suppliers are often confidential, and revealing the terms of their contracts can put them at a competitive disadvantage when bidding on other contracts. The suppliers may sue for breach of contract, so SpaceX and SNC may have no choice but to pull out of the commercial crew program.

It may not be legal for the commercial crew providers to comply with this regulation. Private contracts with suppliers are often confidential, and revealing the terms of their contracts can put them at a competitive disadvantage when bidding on other contracts. The suppliers may sue for breach of contract, so SpaceX and SNC may have no choice but to pull out of the commercial crew program.

15.403-1 Prohibition on obtaining certified cost or pricing data (10 U.S.C. 2306a and 41 U.S.C. chapter 35)....(b) Exceptions to certified cost or pricing data requirements. The contracting officer shall not require certified cost or pricing data to support any action (contracts, subcontracts, or modifications)...(3) Commercial items.(i) Any acquisition of an item that the contracting officer determines meets the commercial item definition in 2.101, or any modification, as defined in paragraph (3)(i) of that definition, that does not change the item from a commercial item to a noncommercial item, is exempt from the requirement for certified cost or pricing data.

Those accounting requirements are specifically for the cost-plus style contracts, where the costs have to be documented in detail. For commercial contracts, the cost from the government's perspective is whatever the company chooses to charge, and in the end, that's what the company gets...no guaranteed profit or protection from loss. The money SpaceX spends is their money, they have no need to justify every cent to outsiders.

If the government required this for every commercial service or hardware acquisition...well, it'd be one cure for government spending, as they wouldn't be able to find anyone to sell them anything.

Unless you're joking, that's not actually true. IIRC, most of SpaceX's launches are contracted for commercial satellite launches, not missions for NASA.

This is only for the commercial crew vehicle. SpaceX's other business is not relevant. I think it is a valid concern that there will not be enough launches to keep multiple commercial vehicles viable and this will devolve into a captive customer engagement.

Stupid. ULA would be happy to do ISS resupply. Of course they will charge 10 times as much -- but hey, at least the pork will be spread around and Slimy Shelby's hands will be greased.

Unless you're joking, that's not actually true. IIRC, most of SpaceX's launches are contracted for commercial satellite launches, not missions for NASA.

This is only for the commercial crew vehicle. SpaceX's other business is not relevant. I think it is a valid concern that there will not be enough launches to keep multiple commercial vehicles viable and this will devolve into a captive customer engagement.

That's irrelevant. The process already goes through competitive bidding. By requiring that they do the special accounting, the government will end up choosing the company (Boeing) that is most expensive regardless if they are transparent or not.

It's also worth noting that United Launch Alliance, the Boeing / Lockheed joint venture that launches Atlas V and Delta IV rockets for the government, builds those rockets in Decatur, Alabama, also in Shelby's back yard.

The commercial program only has one customer, the US government, and the people who pay the government taxes have a right to know how their money is being spent. I see no problem with this amendment. We must be vigilant against the US Space Industrial Complex.

Except for the part where this subtle addition puts two of Boeing's competitors at a great disadvantage, and the congresscritter that put the pork in there has an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to Boeing.

It's not clear that Sen. Shelby supports Boeing's entry in the commercial crew program. He may be more concerned that commercial crew is diverting (a relatively small amount of) money from SLS. Who is the highest-billing contractor on SLS? Boeing.

When it comes to commercial crew, Boeing can take it or leave it. The real money is in SLS.

Yup. $18+ billion total worth of real money. I won't be surprised if SpaceX beats them with their Falcon Super Heavy with regards to cost, capability and development time.

Shelby likely believes he'll feel no backlash from this action because the nuances of contract law are too obscure for most people to be motivated to understand, let alone get upset about. Unfortunately, he's probably right. This is no way to govern.

It is worth noting that Shelby represents the state of Alabama, which is home to a large Boeing Defense, Space & Security facility in Huntsville with about 3,000 employees. In addition to bidding on commercial space contracts, Boeing is also the prime contractor for "the design, development, test, and production of the launch vehicle cryogenic stages, as well as development of the avionics suite" for NASA's proposed Space Launch System heavy lift vehicle, which is being designed primarily at NASA's Marshal Space Flight Center in Huntsville.

Notable in the interest of the necessities for transparency, naturally.

There is also a passed oversight that saddled the commercial crew companies with NASA test (and later) pilots 'in the interest of safety'. Does airplane industry leave tests for the air traffic companies? No, that would be less flexible and hence more costly.

I don't know if The-Largest-Space-Industry-Roadblock-In-US Shelby was with that oversight committee. But I wouldn't be surprised.

**********"How do you know you've met a politician?"........."He offers you his hand in your pocket."

The commercial program only has one customer, the US government, and the people who pay the government taxes have a right to know how their money is being spent. I see no problem with this amendment. We must be vigilant against the US Space Industrial Complex.

Absolute bullshit. All the taxpayer needs to know is the bottom line cost per seat and/or cost per launch. You to NOT need the stupidly painful breakdown of every damn rivet and wire. This is designed purely to either force SpaceX to adopt much more expensive overhead just to deal with the accounting (making them less competitive against Boeing, shocker) - or to exclude them entirely, again to the benefit of Boeing.

All this will do is waste taxpayer money to benefit Boeing, and likely the Russians.

Unless you're joking, that's not actually true. IIRC, most of SpaceX's launches are contracted for commercial satellite launches, not missions for NASA.

This is only for the commercial crew vehicle. SpaceX's other business is not relevant. I think it is a valid concern that there will not be enough launches to keep multiple commercial vehicles viable and this will devolve into a captive customer engagement.

That's irrelevant. The process already goes through competitive bidding. By requiring that they do the special accounting, the government will end up choosing the company (Boeing) that is most expensive regardless if they are transparent or not.

Yeah, it's kinda crazy that someone who thinks we need to keep the aerospace contractors under control would be in favor of a clause specifically engineered to help prop up one of the most entrenched of the contractors against the newer, more agile competition.

Unless you're joking, that's not actually true. IIRC, most of SpaceX's launches are contracted for commercial satellite launches, not missions for NASA.

This is only for the commercial crew vehicle. SpaceX's other business is not relevant. I think it is a valid concern that there will not be enough launches to keep multiple commercial vehicles viable and this will devolve into a captive customer engagement.

That's irrelevant. The process already goes through competitive bidding. By requiring that they do the special accounting, the government will end up choosing the company (Boeing) that is most expensive regardless if they are transparent or not.

Yeah, it's kinda crazy that someone who thinks we need to keep the aerospace contractors under control would be in favor of a clause specifically engineered to help prop up one of the most entrenched of the contractors against the newer, more agile competition.

I've done a bit of checking - it looks like Sifaka has a real personal issue with SpaceX in every thread. Just about every comment is negative and/or derogatory.

And the House version of the budget for NASA requires NASA to down select to just one supplier in this next round of Commercial Crew contracts instead of NASA's preferred goal of picking two suppliers.

I truly do not understand why various members of Congress continue to throw roadblocks in the way of Commercial Crew. Given the other solution, SLS, is a decade away and going to run over budget, I do not see why Congress doesn't fund Commercial Crew at the recommended levels so the U.S. gets back into the space launch business like, next year.

More proof that when the GOP says they are for less regulations and more efficiency, that they are just lying. Saying that government is broken and then working hard to make that true, for the last 40+ years now.

I truly do not understand why various members of Congress continue to throw roadblocks in the way of Commercial Crew. Given the other solution, SLS, is a decade away and going to run over budget, I do not see why Congress doesn't fund Commercial Crew at the recommended levels so the U.S. gets back into the space launch business like, next year.

It is because they view NASA not as a space program but a JOBS program. Anything that doesn't bring a lot of jobs to their district is meaningless to them. If it was about logical sense they would have fully funded Commercial Crew the last few years instead of cutting the NASA budget requests for that program every year (this year included). So they "save" a hundred million here or there on those cuts. But now they have to turn around and pay Russia $71 million a seat for at least 3 more years because our domestic crew capability won't be ready in time.

Hopefully this will get ripped out of the legislation - however you can bet that Boeing wants this left in and will be bribing all the politicians it can - so it doesn't have to compete against SpaceX.

Sucks when you see just how rigged our system is...hopefully they can beat this.